The ClintoNazi Nation has declared war on the forces of democracy and freedom. Hillary Clinton’s corrupt lust for power, her desperation to latch on to the highest position of power in the US, so she and her equally corrupt husband can once again have unchecked power, and the influence that corporate and foreign interests are willing to pay so much to have access to. This is one democrat's efforts to remind the public about facts that are the true legacy of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

The billionaire media magnate Rupert Murdoch changed his nationality from Australian to American some two decades ago in order to further his aim of gobbling up US media for his global empire. In both countries, he projected an image of a super-patriot and nationalist.

When it comes to politics, Murdoch, known in media circles as the “dirty digger,” is equally adaptable in pursuing his personal gain. The most loyal right-wing Tory and friend of Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, as he built up his media holdings in Britain, he switched his loyalties to “New Labour” when he saw that Tony Blair could provide a fresh face for even more reactionary politics and was more than willing to further Murdoch’s interests in return for editorial backing. He made similar swings in his native Australia between the Labor and Liberal parties to further his efforts at monopolizing the print and broadcast media.

So, it should really come as no surprise that Murdoch is now emerging as a prominent backer of the Democratic US Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The Financial Times of London reported Tuesday that Murdoch will personally host a July fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton on behalf of his News Corp.

CBS News reported on the upcoming fundraiser with the provocative headline “Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton.” It stated, “The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months.”

When she first ran for Senate from New York, Murdoch’s New York Post sought to demonize her as an arch-liberal and was notorious for publishing the most unflattering photographs of the former First Lady. “To vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton is to affirm double-dealing and deception,” one Post editorial warned New Yorkers. A leading columnist referred to her as a “duplicitous sow.” How times have changed.

This will be by no means the first such friendly encounter between the Democratic senator—and frontrunner for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination—and the right-wing media baron. Last month, it was reported that Mrs. Clinton was in attendance at the 10th anniversary party for Murdoch’s Fox News in Washington.

As the Washington Post reported: “Clinton spent an hour at Cafe Milano schmoozing with News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch (very chummy since last year’s truce), Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, and most of the Bush administration, including Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett and former Fox host Tony Snow, just hours after he was named the new Bush spokesman.”

For the last five years, Murdoch’s Fox News has served as the closest thing to a state propaganda network that America has ever seen, unswervingly defending the Bush administration while vilifying its critics. Tony Snow’s transformation from a right-wing Fox talk show host into the head of the White House press office is only the most blatant expression of this politically incestuous relationship.

Murdoch, a reactionary warmonger, used Fox as well as other cable and satellite networks covering five continents and his worldwide chain of 175 newspapers to promote the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and to steadfastly defend both Bush and Blair for launching the war. While insisting that Bush was “acting very morally” in attacking a virtually defenseless country that had offered no provocation, Murdoch was not as reticent as most US politicians in identifying the economic aim of the war: “Once Iraq is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil.”

Fox and other Murdoch news outlets led the media in trumpeting the Bush administration’s lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and terrorist threats, and continues to promote the White House claims—long since rejected by the American people—about “progress” in Iraq.

In New York, Murdoch’s New York Post has given new meaning to the term “gutter press,” promoting the most backward, racist and anti-working class views. During the strike by New York City transit workers last December, the billionaire Murdoch used the paper to call the train and bus workers “greedy” and “rats.” Comparing these workers to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the Post demanded that they be arrested and fired en masse.

Union busting is not just a platonic affair for Murdoch. In 1986, he used mass firings and police violence to crush the British print workers’ union in the Wapping strike. He used similar tactics against striking members of the Newspaper Guild at the New York Post in 1993, firing nearly 300 of them.

Now, Hillary Clinton, whose $20 million campaign fund includes large sums from the unions, including Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100, will be getting even more money from Murdoch, a veteran union-buster and one of the most prominent advocates of the TWU’s destruction.

Murdoch is if nothing else a good judge of character. He can sniff out a politician who lacks any principles, whose views and votes are for sale. Support from such elements—in Australia, Britain the US and elsewhere—has played a decisive role in his amassing a multibillion-dollar fortune.

Having watched Hillary Clinton vote for and support the Iraq war and curry favor with the Republican right (as she and husband Bill accumulated their own multimillion-dollar fortune), he likes what he sees. Moreover, the Australian-born press baron can read opinion polls as well as anyone else. With Bush’s approval rating falling below the one-third mark, there is ample reason for him to start hedging his political bets.

In the midst of the Republican impeachment drive over the Monica Lewinsky affair, Hillary Clinton accurately described the forces mobilized to oust her husband from the White House as a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Fox News, and many of those whom Murdoch has assembled to craft its ideological line as well as that of his other media outlets—the New York Post and the Weekly Standard, for example—played a prominent role in this conspiracy.

Mrs. Clinton has long since distanced herself from the bluntly accurate description of these forces that she offered eight years ago. The fact is that those who hatched the conspiracy now have a grip on all the essential levers of power in Washington, and Hillary Clinton is collaborating closely with them.

The budding alliance between Rupert Murdoch and Hillary Clinton provides the most graphic proof that the Democrats offer no means whatsoever to oppose the ultra-right policies of the Republican administration in Washington. Democratic politicians like Clinton are willing accomplices of the Bush White House, supporting both militarism abroad and the attacks on basic democratic rights and social conditions at home.

Whatever their tactical political differences, both parties are committed to defending the interests of the US corporate and financial ruling elite. That is why Rupert Murdoch is confident that he can achieve his ends by backing Hillary Clinton just as well as he did through his fulsome support for George W. Bush.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

By polling logic, I should be your supporter - Democrat, older woman, white, liberal. I was even in a dorm with you in college. I have pulled for you for years. But something this past summer fundamentally changed my responsibility to my children and grandchildren. In the time I have left in my life to protect them and others, I need to speak out.

I saw a News Hour piece on Maharastra, India, about farmers committing suicide [see here and here]. Monsanto, a US agricultural giant, hired Bollywood actors for ads telling illiterate farmers they could get rich (by their standards) from big yields with Monsanto's Bt (genetically engineered) cotton seeds. The expensive seeds needed expensive fertilizer and pesticides (Monsanto, again) and irrigation. There is no irrigation there. Crops failed. Farmers had larger debt than they'd ever experienced. And farmers couldn't collect seeds from their own fields [see here and here] to try again (true since time immemorial). Monsanto "patents" their DNA-altered seeds as "intellectual property." They have a $10 million budget and a staff of 75 devoted solely to prosecuting farmers [here]. Since the late 1990s (about when industrial agriculture took hold in India), 166,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide and 8 million have left the land. Farmers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia,South America, Central America and here, have protested Monsanto and genetic engineering for years.

What does this have to do with you?

You have connections to Monsanto through the Rose Law Firm where you worked and through Bill who hired Monsanto people for central food-related roles. Your Orwellian-named "Rural Americans for Hillary" was planned withTroutman Sanders, Monsanto's lobbyists. Genetic engineering and industrialized food and animal production all come together at the Rose Law Firm, which represents the world's largest GE corporation (Monsanto), GE's most controversial project (DP&L's - now Monsanto's - terminator genes) [here], the world's largest meat producer (Tyson), the world's largest retailer and a dominant food retailer (Wal-Mart) [here]. The inbred-ness of Rose's legal representation of corporations which own controlling interests in other corporations there and of corporate boards sharing members who are also shareholders of each other's corporations there, is so thorough that it is hard to capture. Jon Jacoby, senior executive of the Stephens Group - one of the largest institutional shareholders of Tyson Foods, Walmart, DP&L - is also Chairman of the Board of DP&L and arranged the Wal-Mart deal. Jackson Stephens' Stephens Group staked Sam Walton and financed Tyson Foods. Monsanto bought DP&L. All represented at Rose. You didn't just work there, you made friends. That shows in the flow of favors then and since. You were invited onto Walmart's board, you were helped by a Tyson executive to make commodity trades (3 days before Bill became governor), netting you $100,000, Jackson Stephens strongly backed Bill for Governor, and then for President (donating $100,000). Food and friends, in Clinton terms: Bill's appointed friend Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, who immediately significantly weakened federal chicken waste and contamination standards, opening the door to major expansion of Tyson's chicken factory farms. Espy resigned, indicted for accepting bribes, illegal contributions, money laundering, illegal dispersal of USDA subsidies, .... Tyson Foods was the largest corporate offender. But what Bill did for Monsanto "genetic engineering" goes beyond inadequate concepts of giving corporate friends influence: He unleashed genetic engineering into the world. And then he helped close off people's escape from it. Genetic engineering is many orders of magnitude different from "normal" (even polluting) business in its potential biologic ramifications. The warning myth of Pandora'a Box - letting irretrievable things rush out into nature - has become real. The harrowing change to the world from nuclear fission and fusion is the closest parallel.

What did Bill do?

1. Bill's put Monsanto people in at the FDA, as US Agricultural Trade Representatives, on International Biotechnology Consultive Forums, and more ... (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072600-03.htm) or http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html or http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm 2. Bill's FDA gave Monsanto permission to market rBGH (a GE bovine growth hormone), the first genetically engineered product let loose on us (or did tomatoes with fish DNA get there first?). 3. Despite reports of bovine illness and death, Bill's FDA did not recall it or put warnings on it. Even "a very angry, very vocal nationwide consumer base" had no impact. 4. Bill's FDA wouldn't even label rBGH as "present" in milk. 5. When dairy farmers tried to label their own milk rBGH-free so the public could choose [more on rBGH and labelling here], Bill's USDA threatened all dairies that their products could be confiscated from stores. Michael Taylor, USFDA Deputy Commissioner, was formerly Monsanto's counsel. 6. How were consumers to protect their family, given Bill's FDA enforced public blindness, except to buy only organic? But Bill's FDA tried to close off that last escape, proposing to include in "organic" standards, "the dirty three" a: genetic engineering of plants and animals, use of irradiation in food processing and use of municipal sewage sludge as a fertilizer. The FDA backed down. Had this gone through, Monsanto could have finally labeled rBGH milk ... as "organic." And animal waste from factory farms, a pollution nightmare for Tyson and others, could have been sold as fertilizer. USDA head Dan Glickman: "This is probably the largest public response to an [Agriculture Department] rule in modern history." In fact the response was 20 times greater than anything ever before proposed by the USDA. Personally, I resent years of effort to protect my children and now grandchildren, from that crap. Politically, Bill sided against small farmers and against the public's right to know, and with Monsanto.

A snap shot of our food:

Oils: Sheep died in India after feeding on Bt cotton fields. We feed our children Bt cotton, as cottonseed oil in peanut butter and cookies.

Grains: 49% of US corn acreage was planted in Bt corn in 2007. A French study proved Monsanto's GMO corn causes kidney and liver toxicity. Soft drinks and candy have highly concentrated Bt corn, in the form of high fructose Bt corn syrup. The US food system depends most on two crops, soy (90% GMO, 90% of traits owned by Monsanto) and corn, the largest crop (60% GMO, nearly 100% Monsanto traits). "[E] ssentially our entire food supply is genetically modified, to the benefit of one company." The Grocery Manufacturers of America in 2000 estimated that 70 percent of US food contains GM traits.

Meat: Steroids bulk up atheletes. Monsanto steroids bulk up animals - more weight, more profit. We feed our children steroids in meats. Is this why our children are fattening, like Hansel and Gretel?

Poultry: Bill's USDA weakened chicken waste and contamination standards and attempted to allow sewage sludge as fertilize crops. I will say more about disease from industrialized poultry farms waste, at the end of this letter.

Milk: Over 30 scientific publications have shown increased levels of IGF-1 in milk with rBGH increases risks of breast cancer by up to seven-fold, also increasing colon and prostate cancers risks. Canada, 29 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa ban U.S. rBGH dairy products.

Bill's USFDA put no restrictions, no warning labels (not allowing labels at all). American children eat that food and drink that milk, Hillary. Coincidentally, American children are increasingly fat and sick. Here, Bill ignored pleas for labeling. Abroad, Bill ignored intense international objections over the same issue - unlabeled US food exports - badly straining trading relations. Monsanto's "good ole boy," he betrayed American families at the deepest levels conceivable - their family's health and their democratic right to know. He betrayed our rural life and American family farmers - backing corporation deceit and control, over honesty and clean farming. But, Hillary, it is one thing to not label a regular 'ole food product to sell it, and quite another to sell a suspected-dangerous food product (rBGH), but Bill's administration didn't label (or stop) a well-known, terrifying threat - Mad Cow Disease. Bill's FDA's August, 1997 regulation permitted "known TSE-positive [Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy] material to be used in pet food, pig, chicken and fish feed," only requiring the label to read "Do not feed to cattle and other ruminants" in the US. Monsanto added to the problem. "There is evidence that rbST use [Monsanto's GE bovine growth hormone] reduces the useful lifespan of a dairy cow. ... Given that the incubation period for BSE is at least three to five years and perhaps longer, rbST-treated cows could harbor "hidden" BSE. That is, they might be infected but still asymptomatic when sent to slaughter." http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm Bill let TSE into our entire food chain. And who owned the feed and slaughter and genetic engineering corporations which benefitted? Please, tell me, Hillary, what he could possibly have gotten in friendship or favors, that could ever justify his exposing millions of people to this? With genetic engineering itself, Bill did something to the whole world, which tried to object. Words are inadequate to express how astoundingly immoral, beyond human bounds and conceit and power, that was. "Even for the biggest "winners," it is like winning at poker on the Titanic." Jerry Mander: Facing the Rising Tide

Our way of life is likely to be more fundamentally transformed in the next several decades than in the previous one thousand years...Tens of thousands of novel transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and animals could be released into the Earth's ecosystems...Some of those releases, however, could wreak havoc with the planet's biospheres. -- Jeremy Rifkin, Biotech Century

Bill did this to us, like it was some nothing and he, some big dumb ass Southern boy, just smiling and getting in good with the Big Boys, thinking about as much about the consequences of something this immense and about us human beings out here, as he thought about you, when he was unfaithful with Monica. Just one big fool getting off on the power and used to getting away with things. Terminator genes, developed by DP&L, a Rose Firm client, prevent seeds from "working" after only one season. Farmers "must" repurchase (patents and suing not certain enough control, it seems). Those "killing" genes pose the apocalyptic risk of breaking out into nature. Natural seeds could fail, too. Nature could fail.

Far-fetched?

GMO fields are already contaminating normal species Berkeley Professor of Microbiology, Ignacio Chapela, wrote an open letter, warning the Mexican government about just this breaking out phenomenon happening in maize And it has already happened with weeds - pesticide resistant GMO seeds break lose and weeds become pesticide-resistant Superweeds. [here] But Bill's USDA spokesman, Willard Phelps said the USDA wanted the technology to be `widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed companies.'

Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers. -- David Ehrenfield: Professor of Biology, Rutgers University [also see previous link]

Hillary, one third of the world's bee colonies have collapsed [here]. Gone. Farmers in India are killing themselves. Farmers and bees. Since organic farmers in India are fine and organic farmers report no colony collapse [here], what does these farming catatrophes say about "industrial agriculture" [here] Mad Cow Disease is another direct result of industrial agriculture. And now ....... transnational poultry factories are implicated as the source of bird flu [here]. Small scale poultry farms and wild birds seem not to be the problem [just as small farmers are not the issue in Mad Cow Disease], and yet "initiatives are multiplying to ban outdoor poultry, squeeze out small producers and restock farms with genetically modified chickens. ... http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-27-01.asp "Of the few outbreaks that did occur in [Laos], more than 90% broke out in commercial poultryoperations, not free-ranging flocks." Monsanto (and others) is currently working with the USDA to force small farmers to tag every animal with a global tracking device (NAIS - National Animal Identification System). Allegedly related to food safety, Monsanto and others would be creating a vast corporate digital library on every move of small farmers' livestock. But small farmers do not create the contaminated environments, do not supply the feed, do not grind up diseased animals into feed (how Mad Cow began) and then sell it. In fact, their farming methods, free range and small scale, are significantly healthier and safer for animals and food than the massive concentration of animals by corporate industrial agriculture. Monsanto is also aggressively pushing for state laws to limit farmers' right to choose what to plant and the public's right to exclude GE plants from their communities. Cattle bloated by steroids, lapse and loss of 10,000 year old normal seeds [here], immense pollution from factory farms [here], deadly-disease-ridden feed, world-wide bee colony collapse, poisoned soil and depleted water supplies, Superweeds, lawsuits against farmers, loss of family farms, and ... India farmers killing themselves in what may be the largest mass suicide in recorded human history (on average ... one farmer suicide every 30 minutes since 2002 - The Hindu 1.30.08) - that is industrial agriculture. Monsanto and Tyson are two of the largest industrial agricultural corporations in the world. Industrial agriculture is represented by your Rose Law Firm. Your claim to care about food safety is terrifying double-speak given what Bill did and who you take donations from. Your idea of a Department of Food Safety would centralize control of food - in whose corporate connected hands? You talk tough about labeling food - ah, but "foreign" food - a sleight of hand tricking a public desperate for safe US food. You talk about food safety but Bill degraded food in every imaginable way and prevented minimally sane labeling. I am a person before I am a woman. Your gender means nothing. It is a media distraction. Your policies on health and food and women and children, are meaningless in the face of connections that have threatened those groups profoundly, connections you have never denounced. Monsanto uses child labor in India, primarily very young girls, exposing them to a lethal pesticide 13-14 hours a day, for pennies in pay. But you take donations from their lobbyists. You say you care about black people but as the poorest people in this country, they are least able to buy organic and are forced to eat the contaminated foods Bill let into our food system. The National Black Farmers Association has a boycott out on all Monsanto products.

Do you eat organic?

So, who are you with, hapless black consumers and black farmers, or Monsanto? Mothers left to give their children rBGH milk, or Monsanto? Women exposed to 7 times greater risk of breast cancer, or Monsanto? Desperate farmers in India and young children forced into child labor in cottonseed factories there, or Monsanto? Animals suffering [here] from lives in filthy cages and disgusting feedlots, shot up with steroids and hormones and antibiotics, or Monsanto? Our children who eat candy with high fructose Bt corn syrup associated with kidney and liver toxicity, or Monsanto? Edwards was right about your corporate connections. I just didn't understand until I saw that PBS show and read about Monsanto, how personally affected my children and grandchildren, and all people around the world, have been. I will not vote for you. I will vote for someone who will commit themselves to work on behalf of small farmers and real food and decent treatment of animals and to end this industrialized agricultural nightmare that is taking us off a cliff.

Linn Cohen-Cole, Atlanta

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist. I have read for months on this subject, and am including only a tiny portion of the horrifying things I have learned. I am expressing my opinion as person and may be wrong. Perhaps things are swell out there and rBGH is fabulous and TSE-laced feed is great, and genetic engineering is the best thing since manna. But I am scared for my family and I have not only a right to say so but an obligation to do so. I am angry that Monsanto was allowed the influence it had and has done the things it definitely seems to have. I am disgusted by industrialization of every tender and beautiful part of our world and hope, for all our children's sake, we are not too late to pull back.

The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY PERSONAL HOLDINGS

2006: Bill Clinton Invested Tens of Thousands In An Indian Bill Payment Company. According to Hillary Clinton’s personal financial disclosure form, as part his ownership of WJC Investments, LP LLC, Bill Clintonheld between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of stock in Easy Bill Limited, an Indian company. According to thecompany’s website, “Functioning as a one-stop bill payment shop, Easy Bill facilitates payment of utility bills as well as recharging of pre-paid mobile connections at a place the consumer is already familiar and comfortable with the neighbourhood store.” In addition to providing terminals throughout India where customers may pay their bills, the company also maintains a call center described as “a dedicated response centre for efficient customer service.” [Hillary Clinton 2006 Financial Disclosure Report, http://www.easybillindia.com/]

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING

Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian “Techies.” Clinton’s Presidential Exploratory Committee took $39,450 from Cisco employees during the first quarter of 2007. Cisco employees have also donated $18,900 to Clinton’s Senate committee between 1999 and 2006. Forbes reported, in a feature called “A Tale of Two Cities” that Cisco was laying off $60,000-a-year “techies,” while hiring new employees in Bangalore, India. “Cisco used only a few Infosys workers in Bangalore six years ago [in 1998]; [by 2004, it used] almost 300 contract staff, plus 550 full-fledged employees in its own Bangalore office.” In 2006, Newsweek reported that “for Cisco, India is the new frontier, where it’s investing $1.2 billion to build a gleaming R&D campus that will employ 3,000 people.” [FEC filings; Forbes, 4/12/04; Newsweek, 3/6/06]

Clinton Donor, Sant Singh Chatwal, Cited Clinton’s India Caucus Work Vowed To Raise $5 Million. In March 2007, the Economic Times wrote, “[Clinton] has roped in New York-based hotelier Sant Chatwal as cochair of her recently formed presidential exploratory committee to run for the 2008 White House race. […] He is also creating an organization called Indian Americans for Hillary 2008.” In April 2007, Mangalorean reported that Indian Americans for Hillary 2008 (IAFH) had already raised $1 million and “aimed to raise at least five million dollars.” A major fund raiser on June 24 hosted by Chatwal, the founder of IAFH; steel baron, LakshmiMittal, and businessman SP Hindujas, was expected to pull more than 1,000 guests. In June 2007, The New York Times reported that “two Indo-American receptions have a total of $450,000 in commitments.” In the picture (right), Sen. Clinton speaks at a reception hosted to push forward the US-India nuclear deal while Sant Singh Chatwal listens carefully. [New York Times, 6/7/07; Economic Times of India, 3/18/07; mangalorean.com, 4/14/07, accessed 4/18/07; picture, Tribune India, 9/14/06]

Chatwal Owed The City Of New York More Than $2 Million In Back Taxes, Fled Prosecution For Fraud But Was Arrested During Visit to India With Bill Clinton. Sant Singh Chatwal, who raised more $200,000 for Sen. Clinton in 2000, owed New York City $2.4 million in back property taxes. In addition, during a visit to India with Bill Clinton, in May 2001, Chatwal was arrested by authorities there and chargedwith defrauding the New York City branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994. He posted bail, then fled India, boarding a flight to Vienna despite an attempt by authorities to detain him. . [New York Daily News, 11/24/02; New York Daily News, 11/7/00]

FDIC Charged Chatwal With Obtaining Improper Loans. In a separate 1996 case, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. charged Chatwal with obtaining improper loans from the First New York Bank for Business, causing the bank to lose more than $25 million. Chatwal, who was a director of the bank, arranged more than $14 million in loans to himself and his businesses, often with no collateral, said the FDIC. He didn't repay the loans and the bank failed. [New York Daily News, 11/24/02; New York Daily News, 11/7/00]

CLINTON AND THE SENATE INDIA CAUCUS

Clinton Co-Founded The Senate India Caucus, A Project Of The U.S. India Political Action Committee. In 2004, Clinton co-founded and became the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus which was coordinated by the U.S. India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Roll Call reported, “The goals of the caucus, which alreadyhas 31 members, include increasing trade with India and improving security against global terrorism.” Sen. Clinton said, “It is imperative that the Unites States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences.” [link to photo at USINPAC website, accessed 4/17/07; Roll Call, 4/28/04; PR Newswire, 4/29/04]

CLINTON WINS “WEASEL AWARD” FOR COMMENTS ON INDIA

2005: Anti-Offshoring Advocacy Group Gave Sen. Clinton A “Weasel Award,” Citing Pro-Outsourcing Comments Clinton Made In India. The Press Trust of India wrote, “An American anti-offshoring advocacy group has awarded its first ‘Weasel Award of 2005’ to Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton for her recent remarks supporting outsourcing. The Delaware-based IT Professionals Association of America (ITPAA) representing over 1,200 IT professionals nationwide, said on its Web site that it presented this award to business and political leaders that it believes ‘betray the trust of the American people.’ Scott Kirwin, founder of the organization claimed that people were ‘tired of Democrats pretending they care about the problems facing average Americans. Senator Clinton’s actions prove they clearly do not.’ The ITPAA based its award on press reports of Hilary Clinton supporting outsourcing and assuring political and business leaders in India that the US would not attempt to save the jobs lost. ‘Outsourcing will continue. There is no way to legislate against reality. We are not in favor of putting up fences.’ Hillary had said on Feb 28 in India, according to a report by the Asia Times. Kirwin also cited her position as co-chair of the ‘Friends of India Caucus’ in the Senate, a group of senators that supports issues important to India, including outsourcing and H-1B and L-1 visas, as another reason behind the ITPAA's decision to give the award to the prospective Democrat presidential nominee.” [Press Trust Of India, 3/5/05; Link To Weasel Award]

2/05: On India Trip, Clinton Allayed India’s Fears That Outsourcing Would End. The India Review wrote, “Senator Clinton allayed apprehensions in India that there would be a bar on outsourcing. ‘There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue,” she said. [India Review, 4/05, accessed, 6/7/07]

Sen. Clinton (D-Punjab) Joked That She Was Senator From The Punjab Region In India. “At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton began by joking that, ‘'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,’ after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.” [India Abroad, 3/17/06]

Clinton Says “Outsourcing Does Work Both Ways.” Crain’s New York Business wrote, “Mrs. Clinton may be motivated by a desire to uphold the free trade legacy of the Clinton years. […] In an appearance on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, she boasted about attracting 10 jobs to New York from India-based Tata Consulting. When Mr. Dobbs inquired if she had understood the degree to which Tata, which helps U.S. companies outsource, was stealing American jobs, Mrs. Clinton rejoined: ‘They’ve actually brought jobs to Buffalo. Outsourcing does work both ways.’” [Crain’s New York Business, 6/21/04; CNN, 3/3/04]

In An Interview With Lou Dobbs, Senator Clinton Defended Her Support Of Tata Consulting, A Company That Brought Ten Jobs To Native Buffalo Residents But Destroyed Thousands Of Jobs Over The Years. Lou Dobbs asked Clinton, “Senator, a number of people pointed out to us, e-mailing us and calling us, saying, ask the senator about her helping Tata Consulting, a well-known outsourcer, open jobs -- and office in Buffalo, New York. I’m asking you, did you really understand the degree to which they were involved in outsourcing jobs when you were there?” Clinton replied, “Well, of course I know that they outsource jobs, that they’ve actually brought jobs to Buffalo. They’ve created 10 jobs in Buffalo and have told me and the Buffalo community that they intend to be a source of new jobs in the area, because, you know, outsourcing does workboth ways.” [CNN, 3/3/04]

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Is Famous For Pioneering The Business Practice Of Off-shoring. The San Jose Mercury News wrote, “TCS, however, will go down in the annals of offshoring as the original hightech body shop. Starting in the early 1990s, TCS blanketed the American landscape with legions of itinerant software programmers from India. […] Tata pioneered an industry that eventually evolved into the dynamo of offshoring, or sending work to cheap labor markets overseas. […] Tata’s methods have not been popular among U.S. technology workers, however, who complain guest workers suppress local wages and offshoring takes good jobs overseas.” [San Jose Mercury News, 12/6/04]

Tata’s Buffalo, N.Y. Training Center Caters To The Needs Of The Company’s 8,000 Employees In The United States, 80 Percent Of Whom Are Workers From India. India Abroad wrote, “At the Chrysalis Center TCS will host new employees in month-long training sessions to make them aware of the company’s history and culture and to hone their core IT skills that will bridge existing knowledge with advanced skillsnecessary to work on innovative projects for customers.” The center will also cater to the training needs of the more than 8,000 TCS employees across the US, 80 percent of whom are from India, according to Buffalo News. [India Abroad, 7/30/04; Buffalo News, 7/20/04]

Gupta Said Democrats’ Stand On Outsourcing Was Poll-Year Rhetoric. The Economic Times wrote, “Vinod ‘Vin’ Gupta […] also believes that the Democratic Party’s stand on outsourcing is more poll year rhetoric than any serious economic policy statement. ‘We have to compete globally and US has to find the bestproduct and services at the best cost. Tapping global resources will obviously make the US economy stronger,’ says Gupta whose own company InfoUSA outsources both technology support and database work to vendors in India. Gupta, who has helped Hillary Clinton and Al Gore in fund-raising efforts for their campaigns, is nowinvolved in fund raising efforts for Senator Kerry.” [The Economic Times, 3/29/04]

Hillary Clinton wasn't home baking cookies during this period in history. She was deeply involved or remained silent about the attack on workers across the world. Here is a published letter providing a time line:

Friday, March 07, 2008 Cleveland Plain Dealer Letters Editorial Page

1980s - While Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, about 1,000 U.S. factories were moved to Mexico.

1992 - 2,000 maquiladora factories in Mexico.

1994 - NAFTA is passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton; number of factories moved to Mexico doubles to more than 4,000; reports tell of "dirty manufacturing" in Mexico causing health problems and birth defects.

1995 - President Clinton rushes $20 billion to save the Mexican economy. Then he uses other means to rush even more money to Mexico. ( President asked Congress for $40 billion but they gave him just $20 billion instead- he said he would use other means to get the extra money to bail out the Mexican peso )

1996 - Hillary says NAFTA is good for everyone

2000 - Hillary, at an economic forum in Switzerland, praises business efforts in supporting NAFTA.

None of the above stopped the flood of Mexican workers to the United States seeking economic survival.

Now, after all of that, Hillary says free trade has to be tweaked at bit.

Teddy Roosevelt said the major threat to America are corrupt politicians tied to corrupt businesses.

Franklin Roosevelt said economic diseases are highly communicable.

Pope John Paul said workers are not tools of Capitalism. (Nor, are they tools of state run economies like in China and other totalitarian nations.)

Henry Ford said workers should be partners in business.

Rerum Novarum says it is shameful to use men as things for gain.

The main commodities of Free Trade are workers not products. Free Trade degrades human dignity. Workers are put on a world trading block to compete down to the lowest common denominators of wage slave and even child labor. Production is made mobile ready to move again and again if workers protest too much for a living wage.

President Bill Clinton is claiming victory in his efforts to have the North American Free Trade Agreement passed by the U.S. Congress. But in reality he has lost. How?

The U.S. Constitution absolutely requires that any treaty obtain a 2/3 affirmative vote in the U.S. Senate. That means that NAFTA had to get 67 votes. But NAFTA got only 61! So NAFTA is not law in spite of President Clinton's signature!

The Constitution of the United States establishes a "federal" system of government. This means that most powers are distributed between the central (federal) government in Washington, D.C. and the various state and tribal governments elsewhere. Under the Constitution, for example, control over education, health, environmental safety and many other issues has traditionally been reserved to the states. Tribes have equal powers with the states since the "Interstate Commerce Clause" (Section Eight) gives the federal government only the right "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with Indian tribes...."

An "agreement" or contract between sovereign states is always a treaty, according to the dictonary. International agreements which require the approval of Congress are "treaties," no doubt of that! NAFTA has been treated illegally as an ordinary act of legislation in order to ram it through, in my judgement. (See Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.)

NAFTA would allow Canada and Mexico and their business interests, as well as U.S. corporations, to challenge any U.S. laws, codes or regulations adopted by any state, tribe or local government if it is believed that such laws or regulations interfere with investing or with the sale of services or products by any Canadian or Mexican firms, or subsidiaries of U.S. firms.

Thus, if a tribe has a "buy Indian" rule, that rule will be challengeable by any non-Indian entity. Similarly, any and all safety and environmental regulations will be challengeable.

Who will make the final decisions in these challenges? Not our own tribal courts or our state courts. A Free Trade Commission and various committees appointed by the three central governments (and very probably representing corporate interests) will make the decisions. Thus people never elected to any office will have the final say.

Thus NAFTA is actually an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as a treaty). It will change our system of government by eliminating much of what is left of "states' rights" and by blocking tribal governments in their march towards sovereignty. The "federal system" will be at an end.

NAFTA represents a trend typified by the growth of the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT) superstructure as well as by numerous unelected regional commissions and authorities (like the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority or the New York Power Authority or the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District). These new "governments" are run by appointed persons and bureaucrats (technocrats) who make vital decisions but who are not democratically chosen.

Bill Clinton took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as do U.S. senators, and all are bound by its provisions. Of course, Clinton's people claim that NAFTA is simply an "agreement" and not a treaty, but that is just semantic trickery. A formal agreement between sovereign states (nations) is a treaty. That's what the word treaty means. You can call such an agreement a "declaration," a "convention," or whatever you want, but if it is a formal agreement between sovereigns it is always a treaty and the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 vote for ratification. Sixty-eight votes, not 61!

The genocide treaty was called the "Genocide Convention," but it required a 2/3 vote in the Senate to pass.

We know that ex-President George Bush and his negotiators designed NAFTA to be a treaty because NAFTA purports to be able to nullify the laws of the United States, of the fifty states, and of local governments if they conflict with the provisions of NAFTA. This means that NAFTA becomes a part of U.S. law, part of the "supreme law of the land."

But according to the U.S. Constitution, only a treaty ratified by a yes vote of 2/3 of the U.S. Senate can become part of U.S. law. A so-called non-treaty "agreement," whatever that might be, can have no legal force within the United States.

The House and Senate, by simple majority vote, cannot pass a law which nullifies state and local laws and ordinances, except in certain subject areas where the Constitution grants the federal government supremacy (as in foreign affairs, defense, and the like). Thus NAFTA as a simple law of the Senate and House cannot achieve its objectives. Only as a treaty ratified by 2/3 of the senators with a yes vote can NAFTA achieve its objectives of nullifying our federal system of government.

The newspapers tell us that NAFTA has won. Their reporters apparently don't read the Constitution. What can we do?

Obviously some organization, state government, city, tribe or a combination of the above must go into court to have NAFTA declared inoperative, to obtain a writ against its being implemented in 1994. Organized labor should take the lead, but state, provincial, local and tribal governments should be equally concerned about the threatened loss of the powers of self-government posed by NAFTA.

Tribes and some territories should also note that NAFTA does not appear to refer to their legal existence. Native governments as well as the territories of Guam, Samoa and the Virgin Islands are not included in NAFTA except under the umbrella term of "local" governments or as simply part of the "customs territory" of the U.S. Of course, tribal and territorial governments are not "local."

Thus it is very important that tribal and territorial governments and the Associated Free State of Puerto Rico seek to have the courts declare NAFTA to be inoperative within their territories without the specific consent of their governing bodies.

If this is not done, tribes take the risk of allowing themselves to be categorized simply as "local" governments, and of having their sovereign powers drastically diminished. (States, provinces and territories also face the same loss of self-government, of course.)

In addition, tribal and band governments should pass resolutions declaring that NAFTA shall be without effect within their territories and on any lands to which they possess a claim (e.g., the Black Hills).

One objective might well be to force the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments to agree to a renegotiation of NAFTA in which all international agreements relating to the rights of indigenous peoples, women, children, ethnic minorities and labor can be incorporated into the treaty. Moreover, one might wish to demand that any new NAFTA be accompanied by a North American Parliament with elected delegates, including representation for tribes and indigenous communities.

After all, NAFTA is supposed to be patterned after the European Economic Community, but the EEC also has the European Parliament. NAFTA is now to be run by people who are not elected but simply appointed. That is a big difference to think about!

But of course, election means nothing either unless indigenous governments, women and ethnic minorities are guaranteed representation. In any case, maybe people should think about these options and not give up.*

[Professor Jack D. Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is the author of Columbus and Other Cannibals, Africans and Native Americans and other books.]

All Rights Reserved by Jack D. Forbes

*adapted from a column, Native Intelligence, written by Professor Forbes

WHEN Representative Joseph Kennedy came to the White House October 21 to announce he would support the North American Free Trade Agreement, he was ushered into the press briefing room to say his piece. Earlier in the day, Senator Carol Moseley Braun had made a similar NAFTA declaration, but had to make her statement in the less exalted setting of the White House driveway. The same venue was provided a day earlier to her Illinois colleague, Paul Simon. Letting young Kennedy use the briefing platform, with the plaster-of-Paris White House logo hanging behind him, may seem a small courtesy on a rainy afternoon. But UPI's Helen Thomas, dean of the White House press corps, said it was the first time a Kennedy had spoken from that platform since the Kennedy Administration. Keep in mind that NAFTA is in trouble in the House, not the Senate. The Clinton Administration, after some earlier hesitancy, seems at last prepared to do what it has to to pass the trade agreement.

The Administration still has a lot to do, but there are reasons to think the task may not be as difficult as both the White House and congressional Republicans have thought. Their mutual worry has been fed by mutual distrust. The President, facing a major defection of old-line Democrats under intense pressure from labor, needs about 110 Republican votes. Republicans, suspicious of the Clinton commitment to a treaty negotiated by George Bush and Carla Hills, say they may not be able to deliver unless Mr. Clinton can produce at least as many Democrats. Mr. Clinton is handicapped by the loss of both House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Majority Whip David Bonior, who both oppose the agreement. That makes it harder not only to round up votes, but also to get an accurate count, and not just of Democrats. The White House is accustomed to relying on Bonior, who has contacts among moderate Republicans, for his head counts of Republicans as well as Democrats. On this, the Administration now has to depend on GOP Whip Newt Gingrich, a man they neither like nor trust. Gingrich, of course, feels the same way about the White House.

One might think the Republicans, eager to vindicate their former President, and ideologically disposed toward free trade, would be for NAFTA regardless, but it's rarely so simple in the House. Labor, with help from strange bedfellows ranging from Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot to Ralph Nader, has whipped up stiff opposition to the agreement, playing on the pessimism and insecurity people feel about the economy. The anti-NAFTA mood is most intense in blue-collar Democratic districts, but is not confined to those districts. So completely have labor and its allies dominated the NAFTA debate that there is strong opposition in many Republican-held districts as well. NAFTA is seen now as a tough yes vote for nearly everybody. Senior Clinton aide David Dreyer said the White House is expecting a vote-by-vote struggle down to the last day with the agreement winning by only the narrowest margin. "In the end, it will be like the budget," he says. "We'll be within one vote of losing by eighty." That may sound strange, but it's not uncommon on a major controversy for a President to be holding only as many votes as he needs to win, and only on the condition that he can win. Nobody wants to cast an unpopular vote in a losing cause. "The problem," says Dreyer, "is that nobody wants this. There's just no popular sentiment for it. There's nothing that can match the focused intensity of the opposition."

Gingrich has blamed that on the White House, and particularly on Mr. Clinton. "He has just not focused in the sort of narrow, intense, annoying way that you guys in the White House press corps have to report on whether you like it or not," he says. On October 19, Gingrich said the Clinton effort on NAFTA was "pathetic." Gingrich says the President has repeatedly alienated potential Republican support by derogatory references to the 1980s, when their party controlled the White House. "Every time he starts going on about the last 12 years, my guys say, 'We should vote for this guy?'"

The President was at it again October 20, at, of all things, a NAFTA event at the White House. "The people who are fighting this are bringing to this fight the resentments that they have over what happened in the 1980s. You heard me talk about it--how many decent people lost their jobs; how many times did we see people shut down and move to other countries." Asked about this, White House aides seemed surprised and a little amused that Mr. Clinton's rhetoric was causing so much heartburn in the opposition party. George Stephanopoulos said the President might tone it down, but would not "stop saying what he believes."The tension over such matters obscures the larger fact that the President, for all the hoopla over health care, has placed increasing emphasis on the trade agreement. Indeed, the organizing theme of his domestic program-security for Americans in exchange for their risk-taking for the future--was dreamed up largely as a way to sell NAFTA, and to link it to the health-care program. It is a questionable, if profoundly liberal, notion-that people are more inclined to take risks and make changes in their lives when they feel secure than when they feel threatened.

But conservatives should not overlook the difficulty Mr. Clinton faces selling the trade agreement in his own party. Protectionism may be an intellectually disreputable idea, but it retains a strong hold in many Democratic circles. Mr. Clinton, bogged down in the long fight over the budget and in the gestation of his health plan, certainly spotted NAFTA's opponents a big lead. But the NAFTA event with three former Presidents at the White House September 14 was inspired, and recruiting Lee Iacocca as a TV spokesman on the issue was too. Mr. Clinton has a savvy political operative in Chicagoan Bill Daley running the White House effort. Moreover, there is evidence that public sentiment on the issue is starting to turn. Polls show it, and members of Congress say they're beginning to feel it.

Republican Representative Donald Manzullo of Rockford, Illinois, for example, says his mail, earlier stuffed with anti-NAFTA postcards, now has more pro-NAFTA letters. Firms in his district such as TC Industries, which makes blade edges for major exporters including Caterpillar and John Deere, have been getting the message to their workers that NAFTA is good for them. What's more, the President has made clear that he's willing to make up the projected lost revenue from reduced tariffs on Mexican goods by some means other than doubling the passenger-ticket and rail-transport taxes on border crossings within North America. The tax-increase idea was a poison pill to Republicans. At a White House meeting October 22, Mr. Clinton seemed to have convinced even Newt Gingrich with promises of an intense sales campaign starting November 1. "I thought it was a very effective presentation," Gingrich said. "Our vote count now is that we have more than enough undecided that by the time we're done explaining the facts and having people look at the facts of what this means for America and American jobs, that we will have a clear and decisive majority." Nobody in the White House is ready to go that far, but Bill Daley thinks that if the Clinton team can keep one hundred Democrats uncommitted until November 1, which it appears it can, then it will be able to deliver its promised half of the 218 votes needed in order to win.

Mr. Hume is chief White House correspondent for ABC News.

BTW, here's an article that was published just after Clinton pushed through MFN status for China, the fears of everyone about offering a corrupt nation like China an entry to the US market, came true. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their corporate friends pooh poohed all concerns:

The U.S. House of Representatives today by a vote of 237 - 197, has approved H.R. 4444 -- a bill authorizing the extension by the United States of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to the People's Republic of China.

The granting of PNTR by the United States would clear the way for China's entry into the World Trade Organization and enable free trade with American businesses and industries. Goods from China could be granted the same lower tariff rates in U.S. markets as currently extended to other nations. China has gotten many of these trade advantages for several years, but they have been granted subject to annual review.

A rare event took place on the floor of the House during the last two days of debate -- some minds were actually changed.

Opening today's final debate on free trade with China, Rep. Bill Archer of Texas told his fellow House Members, "This will be the most important vote we cast in our Congressional careers."

The debate did not follow party lines as both Republicans and Democrats spoke for and against the bill.

Potential loss of America jobs to a low-wage workforce in China Possible increase of American trade deficit Possible blockade or invasion of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China Continued failure of the Chinese government to enact meaningful human rights reforms Possible security threats to the U.S. posed by China Representatives speaking in favor of granting China PNTR focused on:

Continued stimulation of American economy from expanding markets in China Potential expanded market for the American agricultural products Potential for improve working conditions and pay for Chinese workers Opening Western-style economy in China could force human rights reform in China The bill as written includes provisions to:

establish a human-rights commission to monitor human rights and trade conduct in China; protect U.S. industries against sudden "surges" in the importation of Chinese products; and expand monetary support for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. Yesterday, the House approved by a vote of 404-8, and amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2001 bill offered by Rep. James Traficant (D-OH), requiring the CIA to inform Congress of any security dangers to the U.S. that might come from extending PNTR status to the People's Republic of China.

Who's in support of free trade with China?Free trade with China is supported by the Clinton Administration, corporate America and agricultural interests. They feel free trade will open up a huge new market for American goods, result in improved conditions for Chinese workers and encourage the Beijing government to enact human rights reform.

Who's opposed to free trade with China?In opposition are organized labor along with human-rights and religious groups. Opponents fear cheap labor in China will encourage U.S. manufacturers to move factories to China while reward the totalitarian Beijing government, and possibly lead to the invasion or embargo of Taiwan by China.

Free trade with China is not yet a done-deal. The bill must now be debated and voted on by the Senate which will not consider the bill until after its Memorial Day break.

President Bill Clinton, Sen. Bob Dole and Rep. Newt Gingrich joined together in passing the unfair trade agreements- NAFTA and GATT. When it came to Globalism, they acted as one. Soon after NAFTA was passed by a Democrat led Congress and a Democrat President in bed with the free-trader Republicans, President Clinton bailed out the Mexican Peso funding Mexico over $20 Billion dollars. The workers not only lost their jobs but actually paid out money as taxpayers to ship their jobs outside the USA.

Corporate leaders like "Chainsaw" Dunlap slashed workers in order to show a better bottom line. As we know now in 2002, many corporations fired workers and cook their books for the sake of stock values. The stock market thrived on workers getting fired instead of hired in an artificial paper economy.

At the same time, the governmetnt cooked their books too showing a surplus where there really was none. President Clinton used the Social Security Trust Fund to support his "Wag the Dog" wars. Today, we have President Bush doing much of the same.

Millions are now "un-netted" , "missing in action" from any kind of reporting as the unemployment stats were "cooked" too. Only about 33 to 40 % of all workers qualified for unemployment insurance and so the Bureau of Labor Statistics bypassed the unemployment offices to get their statistics by calling 50,000 households a month with dubious questions.

In the end, the stock market lost trillions of dollars in value while the American Worker slipped into a silent depression with a new working poor class created. The American Dream faded away as many lost everything they worked and save for their entire lives. And a church bulletin in our city read, "Success is reaching Social Security age before having to declare bankruptcy." as personal bankruptcies broke records almost every year.

Many are "un-netted" and no longer a part of any "network" - they no longer exist in our Global economy. They are invisible while the Global economy now breeds war, too.

In the Land of "is" where everything depended on what your definition of "is"- is, the U.S. was going through the most massive dislocation of jobs in its history with a new working poor class created and an underclass suffering in a silent drepression. See all the jobs that were lost in 1998 while a Statistical Prosperity was being proclaimed......

Based on- Turning Myth into Reality by Burke Hedges

In the early 1970s, the average yearly income for a 30 year old male in today's dollars was over $29,000. In 1992, it slipped to $22,000. And each year it slips a little more. In the span of one generation, young men are earning nearly one-third less than their fathers....... The average American work week jumped from 40 hours in 1973 to 47 hours or more today. Yet with inflation, and buying power stays the same..

Experts predicted 35% of all white collar, college-educated people , would lose their jobs by year 2000 (and they did )

Based on 'Could be me,' many of us say of the homeless -by Constant Casey

The traditional image of a homeless person is an older single man. But the poll found those who felt they could become homeless were primarily women, and people under the age of 35. "They hear person saying, 'Just a year ago I had a good job, a home, a car, a family......here I am a year later, and I have nothing." Today, there are even working families who are homeless because they do not make enough to afford any housing.

"We're finding more and more people with long work histories, they get laid off, then they get a temporary job, then they are laid off again." During the 1990s through 2002, supposedly a period of economic recovery, the number of people needing emergency and social services has broken records almost every year with up to 40 million Americans in needing emergency food. Reportedly, the USA has more children living in poverty than in most other developed nations.

THE HIGH-TECH MIRAGE- IS HIGH-TECH THE PLACE TO BE?

Over a million workers lost their jobs in the computer industry alone. We know about all the Dot Coms that went bust but here are lists of lost companies and jobs. (We represented the last computer that was made in the USA. Now micro computers are only assembled here by $5.50 an hour workers with parts coming from the sweat shops of the world. It is a no win situation.)

In MainFrames alone , over a millions workers lost their jobs too.Honeywell, GE, Sperry, Univac, Burroughs, Control Data, NCR, RCA, Xerox, IBM ( 150,000 in the 1990s) DEC, Data General, Wang, and more. (AT&T laid off 50,000- merged with NCR who already laid off 50,000 and then the new merged company laid off another 50,000) And most of the manufacturers of Cat Scans (Technicare) are gone too. Recently, in our region, several bio-tech companies quit operations or layed off most of their workers. The media made a big deal about this citing the fact that about 300 people lost their jobs in bio-tech while they reported very little over the years about 600,000 steelworkers and about 400,000 autoworkers losing their jobs.

In Computer Media and Components:

3M sold out to Imation who then laid off thousands, BASF Magnetics sold and sent their US factory to Korea, Dysan, Memorex and Verbatim are just brand names- no real factories left. Seagate laid off 20,000 workers in 1998- and over 250,000 lost their jobs in high-tech in 1998 alone while a statistical prosperity was reported. It is difficult to trace more companies because so many were bought and sold more than twice back and forth etc. With each change, more employees lost their jobs.

More contradictions regarding the reported statistical prosperity

We kept a record of company layoffs and closing in 1998 while a Statistical Prosperity was reported by the Media, many lost their across the board--- it was not just the so called "smoke stack" industries that layed off workers or folded.....This again is just a partial list